+ Sponsors

Random Snaps

Tuesday, 18 February 2014

Y'all know how much I like old B&W pictures. Here's Johnny Carson on the day he first hosted the tonight show in 1962, courtesy of the Library of Congress via The New York Times.

So did you see the first "Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon," and if so, what did you think?

Mike

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Jon Orchard: "I'm sure I can't be the only one who finds it hard to believe that Jimmy is older now than Johnny was then. Perhaps it's because, being in my mid 30s, I remember Johnny as old and surely 39 can't be 'old'...can it?"

Monday, 18 November 2013

I can't remember if I've posted this before, or just meant to. Sorry if I'm repeating myself.

Here's probably the coolest house in Waukesha. A real picture by a real photographer (looks like a 4x5 original), although I'm afraid I have no idea who the photographer is. The house is a converted 1934 Art Deco water tower, high on one of the highest hills in my hilly town.

Unfortunately it's also by far the most expensive house in a rather downscale neighborhood (actually, one of the most expensive houses in the whole city), and it's right across the street from the hospital. But it certainly is interesting...I'd love to go see the inside, but I can't see my way clear to knowingly waste a real estate agent's time. You know what they say: Oh well.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Paul Mc Cann: "Having moved a few times and sold houses I can assure that here in Ireland at least 90% of the viewers are tyre kickers and/or neighbours in for a nosy peek. In Northern Ireland it is, or was, acceptable to just knock on the door and ask for a look-see, without any appointment. In Southern Ireland that would be a no-no. The agent accompanies all viewers there and prefers to have the occupants not present. Stressful either way."

Mike replies: I'll say. I toured the house of a neighbor that was "for sale by owner" and thereafter vowed never to do that again. For me it's an agent, an open house, or nothing.

For one thing, it appeared that the husband and the wife had quited different feelings about the idea of selling the house and moving. Very awkward, and I was so uncomfortable I remember little of what that house looked like!

Wednesday, 16 October 2013

I guess this post is just a link with n/t. I'd sure like to have taken that one, though.

(And a brief aside: "capturing images" is just another way of saying "taking pictures"—and really, neither one is inherently better than the other—but all the same, I don't think I'll ever get used to it. Grates like a howler*.)

Mike(Thanks to Jeff)

*"A mistake, esp. an embarrassing one in speech or writing, that evokes laughter." —Webster's Collegiate Dictionary

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

farshore: "I have shot in this area quite a bit, and surfers jumping off the cliff
is not at all usual. What is unusual is how close he is to the cliff,
and that he chose to jump with a wave coming in instead of going out."

Monday, 14 October 2013

This is fun, especially if you wanted to be an astronaut when you were a kid. (The photo is by Jook Leung.)

Mike(Thanks to Michael Tapes)

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Monday, 16 September 2013

My friend Jack took this view of Green Bay's Lambeau Field yesterday from the roof deck of the brand new South End Zone, which adds 7,000 new seats to the old stadium. Last year, he would have needed a hot air balloon to get this view.

Here's a larger version, and here's the story. Note the crops showing the ball in the air, as a demonstration of the Leica S2's resolution. And that's with a 24mm (19mm equivalent angle of view*) lens!

The Packers beat the Washington Generals 128-3, and Aaron Rodgers' QB rating was 286. He threw for 680 yards**, tying a Packers record.

Mike

*The S2 has a 45x30mm sensor, so the crop factor is ~.8x.

**These numbers might not be 100% accurate. As I've mentioned before, I have a poor memory for numbers.

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Jason Sewell: "Great shot. But there appears to be slight up/down motion blur. Or is this a lens issue?"

Mike replies: As always with the Web, you have to keep in mind that you're not seeing the actual picture--you're seeing a small JPEG of it through several generations of web software. I'm sure what you're seeing is some kind of digital artifact, given how sharp the extreme crop is:

And even that is several generations away from the original!

Ctein comments: Normally pixel-peeping is an inappropriate way to look at a photograph, but you can't say Mike didn't invite it in this case! Hell, made it well-nigh irresistible. [Grin]

Anyways…there's definitely an asymmetry in the sharpness. It could be partly a depth of field issue as semilog suggests, as the picture is sharpest at the bottom (closest) and gradually loses definition towards the top (further away). You wouldn't think depth of field would be an issue at this distance with an ultra-wide-angle lens, but when you're pixel peeping at this level (at 100% size, it's almost a 3.5x5' photograph on my screen) DoF can be astonishingly shallow.

I'm thinking that's not it entirely. There's a peculiar doubling of the fine detail in the big screen at the top of the stadium. Quite evident in the lettering. It looks just a little bit like camera shake. Does the Leica S2 have a vertical-traveling focal plane shutter? If so, it's entirely possible to have a photograph where a bit of camera shake affects the top of the photograph but not the bottom (or vice versa).

But…I'm thinking that's not it entirely, either. Because if you look at the trees near to the screen, behind it, they are pretty blurry, but look a little further to the left or the right and they become quite sharp. (And towards the extreme edges get a little smeary, but that's normal in ultrawide angle lens, especially with this degree of pixel peeping. Remember—3.5x5' print! That's feet, not inches.)

So, my vote? What semilog says: toss in turbulence/thermals in the atmosphere. It can produce effects just like this, that vary from spot to spot in the picture. Normally you only see them with telephoto lenses, which magnify the effect. But normally you're not pixel-peeping on such a high-resolution image.

I'm pretty certain what you're seeing is not a lens quality issue. Decentering in a lens can produce an asymmetric image in pretty complex patterns, but the superb quality at the bottom of the photograph—tack-sharp along the lower edge and no noticeable smearing until you get to the extreme corners and there it's quite symmetric—argue against that. Decentered lenses can look good on one side of a photograph and bad on the other, but not this good.

My two cents' worth.

Andy Kowalczyk: "Yes, the color balance is atrocious.
The entire stadium is overwrought with Green and Yellow. A superb
football picture demands a color palette rich in Navy Blue and Orange!
—Andy Kowalczyk, Chicago."

Tuesday, 30 July 2013

This almost doesn't work this small. What I like are the details—the half-full glass between their knees, the fact that her toenails are painted, his tattoo, the older person's hand on his bicep, the way her fingers fan out delicately on top of his like swan feathers.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Henry Rogers: "Presumably it's a story with actors rather than a slice of life. The
glass, or plastic beaker, seems to be dry rather than empty. The girl
has painted toenails but un-painted finger nails. Is that a real tattoo
on the inside of the man's left arm or a transfer? Male tattoos are
often where they show best, on the outside of an arm, but that wouldn't
work in this scene. Both females have hands in more-than-casual
gestures. It's an intriguing scene but does it mean anything? If not,
does that matter. Oh, and it's pretty good technically too but that may
not be the point. Tell us more please Mike!"

Mike replies: I can't tell you what it means, but it was entirely adventitious—no setup or direction at all. It really was a "random snap." I did take a variant or two before they moved, though. It was taken in the front of a speedboat on a lake. (To answer some other commenters, no, I wasn't driving the boat. I think we were moving along the shore at trolling speed at the time.)

Geoff: "I think you've probably answered this before but what do you use to put
those nice filed neg. carrier borders around your digital images? (at
least that's what I assume is going on here) Great shot by the way!"

Mike replies: Several people have asked about the processing so here goes: Usually I do balancing (set the vignetting, burning and dodging, and image geometry [Lens Corrections > Manual Transform]) in Photoshop first. Then open in Nik Silver Efex Pro 2 and set the tones using the Global Adjustments, being very careful of the Structure slider which is one of those "crack cocaine" controls in post. (I.e., get addicted and you can't get enough...until your picture, like an addict's life, lies in utter ruins). Then I open a Color Filter, usually Yellow but infrequently orange or red, almost always backing it off from its default. Hint: look for mid-tones with the color filters, especially with skin tones. In Finishing Adjustments I use Sepia 19 for Toning, backing it off to the neighborhood of 20/20 for "Silver" and "Paper" toning. Generally I use a little more toning for images of people and a little less for landscapes or anything with skies. Finally, I use Image Border #3 and back it off to –95 in the Size slider.

This last is the only real "fakery" in this method, but I'll tell you why I do it: it's to make my digital B&W pictures consistent with the rest of my life's work. I see my work as a continuity. Film to digital was a huge disruption for me as it was for many people, but if a film and digital B&W picture are framed and hung near each other, I don't want either one to scream "this is film!" and "this is digital!"—I want people to look at the pictures. I probably wouldn't use a border if I were starting out now, but I'm not starting out now—I have hundreds of pictures already in my print cases that have borders. So the new ones need to be, not identical, but aesthetically consonant with the old ones.

I now almost never start with sharpening or noise reduction. I've found that current cameras are sharp enough with no adjustment or just a little "Clarity" and don't need more, and what noise I see is seldom intrusive. (This is quite a big change from, say, 2005, when we were preoccupied with sharpening and noise.) Note that B&W has an advantage here because we don't see chroma noise nearly as much. But I seldom use sharpening or noise reduction on color pictures now either, at least for Web use.

I seldom use Curves but when they're needed it would be very difficult to explain in words what to do. I just know what images with various curve shapes look like in B&W images, from long work with enlarger printing and film and paper sensitometry, so when I see any of those "looks" in the digital image I know what to apply to counteract it or back it off. This would require a short seminar-type class to convey properly (and it would take me a lot of time to work how to teach it). But I seldom use Curves, so you can ignore this bit.

And a few more words about image processing:

In general, processing is not really a technical matter. Yes, you need the technical skills so you can implement your adjustments, but what it's really all about is judgement: taste and intention. That is, what looks right to you, and what you want the picture to look like. In "amount," processing might well be less important than how you see and what you take pictures of; but in "quality," it's every bit as much about your personality and preferences, your own idiosyncratic sense of "there, that's right, that's the way I like it and think it should be." That's 85% of post-processing for me. It will naturally be more or less for others, because some peoples' work is more about processing and some peoples' work is less about it.

And specific to me, here are two hints about the way I process. With almost every control, there is "too little" and "too much." It's easier to judge the proper amount of almost everything by starting with too little and creeping up on "too much" gradually or incrementally. If you start with massive amounts of Structure or Clarity, it's more difficult to back off to find the right point. Start off with too little and move up on it until it seems like enough.

What I do with almost every parameter is to move up on it until it becomes noticeable, then back off just a tad. I never want people to look at a picture and say "what a beautiful print!" or "what excellent post-processing!" first. They can say that later if they want to. But their first reaction should be to the visual contents of the picture—in this case, parts of the bodies of three people touching and the details that provide clues as to their identities and situation. That's the important aspect of the picture, not how much toning I gave it or whether it's super-sharp or not.

Finally, Taran asked how size could matter. That's art school 101 (i.e., very basic, and very important) but—talk about size—it's too big a subject to cover in this already-too-long reply.

Friday, 05 July 2013

A few snaps from yesterday. We had a lovely day at the lake, and the weather was perfect.

Ever since I mentioned the TOPcam at the end of Wednesday's post, I've been inundated with requests from people wanting to know more, because, of course, the popularity of B&W (and the pent-up demand for B&W-only cameras) is fierce. The unique TOPcam hybrid, which was created AT GREAT EXPENSE TO ME, is called the "Sony NEX-XXX" (that last bit is pronounced "tri ex"). Unfortunately—don't mass outside my door with cudgels and firebrands, please—I cannot reveal the identity of the shop that did the stunning masterpiece of a conversion. Their identity is top secret. They have an eight- or ten-year waiting list, and they don't want anyone to know they let me skip the line.

My bro' had a permit to burn brush, but needed a windless day.

That's fire, in the top pic. Of course, as I mentioned, the TOPcam is not capable of recording colors. For you lovers of colors, the fire was orange*.

Coming home from the lake I drove through endless clouds of bugs. What with our wet Spring and (so far) Summer, the bugs are flourishing. The front of the car is covered with bug grime. For some reason I felt bad when a lightning bug would get mushed against the windshield...you see a little streak of bright phosphorescence for a few seconds that then slowly, sadly fades. Sorry, little lightning buggies. I guess it's better than dying slowly in a jar.

I think I mentioned that I'm not big on fireworks, but I managed to see a show anyway. Coming home, I followed the colored blooms in the sky and got off the freeway an exit or two early. Come to find, the service road north of the airport was lined on both sides with vans, pickups, and SUVs, all festooned with persons. (I swear, everybody in this town has their own favorite strategic location from which to watch the fireworks, which originate at the Fairgrounds.) I stopped for a while and watched with the crowd.

You may consider this an ironic fireworks shot, not a straight fireworks shot. As I mentioned I mentioned, I'm not that big on fireworks, personally. But, for you lovers of colors, the sky was really dark gray, and the firework in the picture really was just white, nothing more. The TOPcam got the colors just right! The TOPcam is awesome.

Hope you had a nice one yesterday too, if you're a Murkin.

Mike(Thanks to m3photo)

*Okay, I'll admit it, the top picture of those two really does look better in color. Shhh.

UPDATE: A "Satire Alert" belongs with this post. My NEX-6/24mm kit is bog standard. It will only take B&W faux-35mm pics because that's the kind of pics I like best, that's all. My intent is never to mislead. Carry on.

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Friday, 14 June 2013

Here's my latest pic, taken last night. I got six or eight good shots last night, but the older I get the more willing I am to let the "just good" ones fall away and concentrate on the ones that have "it" for me—whatever strange grace it is that makes a picture work for me. This is one, but then, they're my friends.

Lillian and Rebecca, daughter and mother

Lately I've been wanting my digital pictures to look like my film pictures so that they all go together. I've got twenty years' worth of prints that looks just like this, black and white with a black line around it. It's a natural look for Tri-X printed with an enlarger, not at all a natural look for digital. But then, digital has no inherent materiality in the modernist sense—it's plastic, it can look like anything. So why can't it look like the rest of my work? It's all one body of work.

It's just that my technique used to have integrity and now it doesn't, is all. I can live with that, I guess. But maybe I'll feel differently a month from now.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Ben Rosengart: "I suppose one shouldn't be overly attached to that kind of formal integrity, any more than to anything else.
Doing B&W on a color camera means you're already in a state of sin, right?"

Mike replies: 'Zackly.

John London: "That picture has great tones Mike!"

Mike replies: Thanks. You've given me a great compliment: Louis Armstrong's highest compliment to a fellow musician was "He has good tone." I think it was Frank DiPerna (either Frank, or Joe Cameron) who told me that he thought it was a high compliment to photographers, too.

Friday, 25 January 2013

As you know, whenever photographers gather, pictures are made. I got to have lunch yesterday with my friends Nick and Jack at Screaming Tuna on the Milwaukee River in the Third Ward, which was fun.

Nick gets schooled in the use of the Leica S-Kahuna, the World's Best Camera according to Yrs. Trly. Photo by me, with the world's 132nd-best camera*.

Nick's portrait of Jack—with a camera he'd never handled before, on manual everything, including focus. Jack was impressed.

Some big doofus with a weenie camera. On the Hank Aaron State Trail in Festival Park, with my trusty GX1/20mm/LVF2 combo.

Jack's shot of the view from the Screaming Tuna: the tug Leona B pushing a coal barge under the Water Street drawbridge. Note "Historic Third Ward" gate in the background.

With only the 120mm lens with him, Jack made a wide-angle panoramic of the coal barge, which worked well even though the barge was moving (slowly).

a 100% crop from the panorama above, which could be printed at 240 res at 12x3 feet in size (Jack's business involves selling large prints).

My restauranteur friends Siam and Quyen no longer own the Screaming Tuna, but they're opening a new restaurant in Shorewood next summer. I'm looking forward to that. But I don't think it will become the site of future meetups; by coincidence, Nick and his wife are planning to move to Arizona soon, and Jack and his wife spend part of each winter at their condo in the same Arizona city. I figure
that means that in the future, we'll have to meet for lunch somewhere in
the middle of Kansas.

Mike(Thanks to Nick Hartmann and Jack MacDonough)

*Estimated.

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Chris: "Nice shot of the Leona B. The pano looks especially nice. I had hoped to catch the St. Mary's Challenger last time I was in Milwaukee. She's the oldest laker still in service. To put things in perspective, she started her career on the Great Lakes in 1906. That's six years before the Titanic. I really need to get a shot of her this year if I can...."

David L.: "Geez, we missed the opportunity for a duel between the S-Kahuna and the Dragoon! Wow, shootout of the decade and it didn't happen :-( "

Monday, 21 January 2013

In a little less than two weeks, the two boys in this 1971 snapshot, John in the middle and Jim on the right, will coach against each other in the Superbowl.

That two brothers could end up as head coaches in the NFL is maybe not quite as improbable as two brothers both being Superbowl-winning NFL quarterbacks—and neither is quite as amazing as the Williams sisters—but that they'd end up coaching their teams to Championships in the same year ranks as a strange coincidence.

And it goes to show, you never really know what the future is going to see in a photograph...even a mundane family snapshot like this one.

Mike(Photo courtesy of the Harbaugh family, via si.com)

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.A book of interest today:

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Ben Rosengart: "Reminds me of Peter Turnley's story of having his picture go up against his brother's in a blind competition, and one won and the other was runner-up."

dan meyers: "Here in Baltimore it's already being called both a) the Harbowl and b) the Bro Bowl."

Friday, 23 November 2012

My brother and sister-in-law's living room is a de facto torture test for available-light shooting. The light at night is pleasant in person, but it's low in level and quite variable around the room—camera after camera that I've tested over the years has skidded up against its limitations in that room. There are reflections from a wall of windows and pools of light and dark, direct mixed with indirect lighting.

I made the usual bunch of happy holiday family snaps like this one. Datshy is my brother's sister-in-law and a longtime friend.

I think this is going to be the end of "a picture a day" for me, though. I'll throw up a snap from time to time, but pictures need to season more, for my taste. Releasing them into the world when they're too green (heh) makes it too easy to misstep.

Also, I haven't really worked out how to make these little JPEGs look good on TOP. They look a lot different here than they do on my monitor. (Is there a parallel to color management called "B&W management"? Hmm. [UPDATE: Solved now. Thanks. More on the topic anon.])

Mike

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

Hugh Crawford: "There have been several mentions in the Comments of color managed browsers and calibrated monitors, etc.

"It is entirely possible to set up a workflow such that Photoshop, your browser, random other viewing software, and your printer all make the image look the same and 'correct' but the same file will look like either light mud, dark mud, or 'black-light Elvis on velvet' on most peoples' browsers.
Photographers seem more likely than most users to fall into this trap by fine tuning their systems so that everything is wildly out of whack but overall the different factors compensate for each other.

"The problem is to produce sRGB profile files that look good on both the average non-color managed system and the most color managed systems.

"The solution to the above problem is left as an exercise for the reader. (Or see my other comment, in the Comments section below.)

"It's a lot easier than it used to be now that Apple has switched from gamma 1.6 to gamma 2.2. This article alone may help your problems.

"These days the only radically bad looking displays belong to longtime Mac users who have not switched to gamma 2.2 and see everything lighter than the rest of the world. If I have a client who insists that something on the web looks really washed out on their old Mac computer that they use for pre-press I send them to the local Apple store. Everybody else either cares enough to set their computer up correctly, is lucky enough that the default settings are right, or just doesn't care.

"That said, keeping setup that is tweaked to match your important client's whacked out system can save a lot in your psychopharm perscription co-pay.

"By the way, for testing your web graphics, you can't beat using the various online browser testing services like these:

Wednesday, 21 November 2012

ISO 6400, comp. –3, and I almost hate to say it, handheld. Taken this morning.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.A book of interest today:

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from:

David Bostedo: "Looks like you could use more exposure range...the bulb filaments are blown out and not visible."

Mike replies: True, but I can recover the shape of the glass globe:

Did the mighty dragoon just swat you down with its awesomeness? [g]

Nicholas Condon: "Okay, that recovered image of the globe made me laugh. It's also amusing that you used a camera capable of ridiculous resolution and dynamic range to take a picture of a foggy day where the highlights are completely blown and the shadows are almost completely stopped. On the other hand, it's a really nice picture."

Ernest Theisen: "I sometimes get up at 4:00 in the morning but I don't take my camera to the bathroom with me."

Mike replies: I wasn't going to the bathroom outside, I promise.

Jeff: "Photo for your book Waukesha de Nuit, I suppose."

[In case you didn't get Jeff's reference: perhaps the most famous early book of night photography is Brassaï's Paris de Nuit, or Paris by Night. —Mike]

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Saturday, 09 June 2012

(I'm just sayin'.) A random snap encountered surfing—Georgia Holt, 86, and her daughter Cher, 66 (and the photographer, unidentified). The picture was tweeted by Cher after she and her Mom visited with the Obamas.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Monday, 04 June 2012

Veteran French photographer, photojournalist, and documentary filmmaker Raymond Depardon used three cameras to shoot the official portrait of new French President François Hollande. The portrait that was selected was shot with Raymond's vintage 1962 Rolleiflex, which he's seen using here.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Edward Taylor: "I like the photo just fine, but there seems to be nothing extraordinary about it. Is's just a photo. The previous portraits of previous presidents are not anything special either. I don't think the intent is to make a work of art. These are documentary portraits with the purpose of looking dignified, well dressed, respectable, patriotic, etc.

"The real danger here is having a 'green screen' look. This portrait does look green screened because of the lighting difference between the subject and the background. Diffusers and reflectors, as well as flashes or artificial lighting can create a disconnect between the subject and the background that makes the viewer wonder if the subject was really there at all.

"I'm not sure Karsh would be happy with these results."

Featured Comment by Bill Bresler: "You've all missed the real significance of these photos. The last photo I saw of Depardon was probably made in the late 1970s. He looked like a skinny, depressed little French guy. Now he looks like me!"

Featured Comment by ankylosaurus: "Nobody cares how hard you tried and what equipment you used—well in this particular case this isn't true....

"I happen to live in France and the media here never omits the fact that the image is taken by a 50 year old camera.

"Depardon explained that he only had the time to take 12 images with the Rollei before the president vaporized...his assistant didn't have time to load another roll. So he had to make do with what he had.

"To me the president looks rather uncomfortable and tensed. It's like somebody just shouted:

"—Hey Fraçois, You have a wasp under your collar. Whatever you do, don't move because he sure do look angry....

"But I guess that the vintage camera more than compensates for the wasp look...."

Mike replies:That's interesting that Raymond only got one roll in, because that was exactly my reading of the picture when I first saw it—that the subject didn't have sufficient opportunity to relax and the photographer didn't have enough time to shoot as much as he needed.

I used to demand of my subjects that they not only give me an hour of their time at a minimum, but that they not schedule anything else for at least two hours after our session ended—and preferably nothing else for the remainder of the day. My feeling was that the pressure of "I've got somewhere to go" would show up in the picture otherwise.

Of course one does not have the luxury to make such demands with the President of France!

Friday, 25 May 2012

Pabst beer was brewed in Milwaukee for 152 years, and at its peak in 1978 was one of the largest labels in America. But by the 1990s the company had gone into steep decline and become a "virtual brewery" (contracting out the making of its beer). The company still exists today, but in 1996 the huge historic brewery complex in Milwaukee was closed. Abandoned since then, it's slated for urban renewal beginning very soon, although the final plans haven't been revealed to the public yet.

Paint peel porn was plentiful

Once renowned far and wide for its tours, the ruins are still toured by visitors...frequently including photographers. Our friend Jack MacDonough (you've crossed his path before in these pages) invited me to come with him today to photograph in the old bottling plant.

I noticed right away that we have different modus operandi. Jack sets right up and starts shooting—whereas I'd reconnoiter the whole joint first, then decide where I wanted to shoot. The scene at the top of the post is what meets the eye right inside the door where we entered the old building.

Jack was working—he'll sell pictures he made today. I, on the other hand, was just messin' around:

Jack, S2 in one hand, Gitzo tripod in the other, through a gap in the wall next to a door covered in (what else?) peeling paint.

Messing around or not, I should have brought my tripod along. Tactical error. The picture below probably comes off the worst of the four here on the blog page, because you're seeing it too small, but on my screen it's the one that interests me the most. (I suppose you have to like pictures of photographers working, which of course I do.)

Unfortunately I had to push the little GF1 to ISO 1600, which is beyond its limits. The file is pretty crungey close in. Maybe I'll send it to Ctein so he can work his industrial light and magic on the offending pixels; this one would be a challenge to print.

(By the way, see all that whitish cruft on the ground in front of the archway? Bird feathers.)

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Thursday, 15 March 2012

We've seen some really very creative "busvertising" but I think this Dec. 2009 effort gets the palm—by Denmark's Bates Y&R agency for the Copenhagen Zoo, from Coloribus via Andrew Sullivan. The Creative Director was Ib Borup and Peder Schack was the A.D.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Rick Bennett: "You can count me amongst people who wouldn't get on that bus. Well, maybe if I was in a tight squeeze."

Featured Comment by Eolake Stobblehouse: "As a Dane, I can tell that Copenhagen has a nice tradition for bus art. Years ago they had a series of busses which were not even commercial, but were painted by commissioned fine arts painters, some were great."

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Rowan: "Amusing, but the whimpering health and safety officer in me wants me to tell you that here in england, using a camera whilst driving is totally 100% illegal. Plus he's obviously driving on the wrong side of the road ;-)"

Slobodan Blagojevich replies to Rowan: "Hmmm...not to argue with that, just matter-of-factly: he is driving on the right side of the road ;-)"